Template talk:Trump family

Purpose?
Navigation boxes are for articles, not just to list tons of non-notable entries. This template only has a few actual article, so what purpose does it serve? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 03:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed non-article entries. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 03:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

And there is no reason for the template if it's this short, all other presidential templates have family included, so this size template should probably be merged with Donald Trump per site consistency. Randy Kryn 15:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine, because the main template will grow and presidency issues wouldn't be very relevant to the articles about individual family members who are notable for other things than happening to be part of the president's family. — JFG talk 14:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Generations
This template includes Frederick Trump and his wife Elizabeth in the "first generation" group (notwithstanding the fact that they weren't the first generation of the family), but Donald Trump is included in the "third generation" and his wives are, quite oddly, included in the "fourth generation" as if they belong to a different generation than their husband and are his children! --Tataral (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right, I made it clearer with just two groups and clear descendancy lines. — JFG talk 14:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Barron or not Barron
Now that, per AfD, Barron Trump's page has been merged as a redirect to Family of Donald Trump, there is a disagreement among editors here whether his name should be included in the navbox. Arguments for: completeness of presidential family, avoiding edit wars. Arguments against: general guidance on criteria for inclusion in navboxes. My take: we should WP:IAR and include him for the sake of stability and being informative to our readers. Note that I am in no way contesting the AfD results, in which I voted strongly against a separate article. Contributors: comments welcome. — JFG talk 15:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not included, since we have no page for him at the present, although that may change because of notability, he should also not be red-linked here. Red links on templates usually imply that Wikipedia seeks and would welcome a competent article on the subject, and a new page on this subject is neither sought nor would stand at the present time. Full disclosure: I think that this template is redundant, because the Donald Trump template already covers these topics and per the rest of the US presidential templates. Randy Kryn 15:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about a red link here: Barron Trump is a blue link to the relevant section of Family of Donald Trump and it's perfectly fine that way. — JFG talk 22:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose inclusion the purpose of navboxes is to guide readers through topics that already have articles. There isn't really anything to navigate with for someone who doesn't have a page. It isn't any less informative for readers to exclude subjects without articles. I also agree with Randy's comments on this template being redundant. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Obvious included, Include as no link or blue link to family, so readers are aware that Donald has a child with Melania, otherwise the chart is incomplete. It is called Family of Donald Trump which Barron is a member. Valoem   talk   contrib  15:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion - This would seem to be rather straightforward and I'm surprised there's even a debate about it. I agree with the rationale presented by JFG and Valoem. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Include name, when people click on Barron Trump they are (correctly) being redirected to Family of Donald Trump. It doesn't matter whether we have a "full" page on him or not at present -- the biographical topic of Barron Trump is a future WP:SPINOFF article from the meta-article Family of Donald Trump, just exactly as Melania Trump is such a spinoff aka subsidiary article, already.  If there is a question of whether Barron Trump is WP:NOTEWORTHY enough to be in the template (as opposed to Melania Trump's half-brother who is not noteworthy enough for example), then that is worth discussing.  But that is a question that can be answered by looking to the sources, and seeing whether Barron is mentioned, along with Tiffany, in addition to the older children Ivanka + Eric + donaldJunior.  Some quick googling suggests that he is not mentioned as often as Tiffany, nor his mother -- with Tiffany there are ~1.3m hits, with Barron ~0.2m hits, with Melania ~1.3m hits, with just the older adult children ~2.1m hits.  So there is no question that Barron Trump gets 'relatively' little coverage, compared to his mom and step-siblings.  But the question that ought to concern us, is whether 0.2m hits is ENOUGH to justify noteworthy-ness, or notability-equivalence:  does Barron Trump satisfy WP:GNG -- which is different from whether he actually has a dedicated article.  It seems clear to me that he does pass WP:GNG easily, and therefore that the lack of a dedicated page is merely because of his age and ancestry.  And to be clear, I have no problem with the AfD outcome.  My point here is that Barron Trump, as a topic, is not as noteworthy as Melania or as Ivanka, but clearly quote worthy of inclusion in the template about Trump's family.  If he *is* in the template, he won't appear as a redlink, because of the redirect -- unless I'm misunderstanding how templates work?  Point being, we need not, and we ought not, use questions about whether Barron Trump is blue or not, or questions about whether the content covering Barron Trump is a 'real' fullblown article or not, to make this decision.  It should be based on what the sources usually do, when they cover members of the "family of Donald Trump".  As for the comments about redundancy, I supported the reverse solution -- keep this template as-is whilst cutting out the redundant portion of the Donald Trump template because it was already covered in THIS template properly -- over at the discussion about said redundancy.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

"Template:Trump Empire" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Trump Empire. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 00:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)